I hope that he decides to again serve our country.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5046723/ ... ell-speech
He called out ALL
January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27219
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
here, here!CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 4:18 pm I hope that he decides to again serve our country.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5046723/ ... ell-speech
He called out ALL
-
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15586
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
So this criminal referral now gets bumped up to DOJ to file charges and prosecute. Should be interesting to see how the DOJ prosecutes the dumpster. Where would the trial even take place? NYS and Georgia also want to have a crack at trump as well. This could outdo the OJ trial as an entertainment show for the media. I can only imagine how long it will take to find 12 jurors that don't have an opinion of trump in some form or another.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:16 pm Introductory material and executive summary:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... 1/full.pdf
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
+1CU88 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 4:18 pm I hope that he decides to again serve our country.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5046723/ ... ell-speech
He called out ALL
And thank you for posting this.
-
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
I assume a trial would be in DC Federal District Court.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:52 pmSo this criminal referral now gets bumped up to DOJ to file charges and prosecute. Should be interesting to see how the DOJ prosecutes the dumpster. Where would the trial even take place? NYS and Georgia also want to have a crack at trump as well. This could outdo the OJ trial as an entertainment show for the media. I can only imagine how long it will take to find 12 jurors that don't have an opinion of trump in some form or another.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:16 pm Introductory material and executive summary:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ ... 1/full.pdf
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
It is very likely that the first case against dopus will be the govt documents case.
Could be brought in Florida, since that is where the docs were taken to and unlawfully retained/stored. More likely in DC since that was where the docs were taken from.
I’d guess the special counsel will drop that indictment Q1 2023.
Could be brought in Florida, since that is where the docs were taken to and unlawfully retained/stored. More likely in DC since that was where the docs were taken from.
I’d guess the special counsel will drop that indictment Q1 2023.
Boycott stupid. Country over party.
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
I think it would be malpractice to bring the case in Florida. There is a chance you get that whackadoodle judge again. Also a bit dicey with the jury pool down there. Much, much safer jury pool in DC. 95% of the vote in DC went to Biden in 2020. So maybe Trump gets one juror, maybe not. Prosecution could well be able to get rid of all Trump jurors were their preemptories.
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15586
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
So job #1 for the dumpsters legal team will be to petition for a change of venue. They have to believe he is screwed if the trial takes place in DC.njbill wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:02 pm I think it would be malpractice to bring the case in Florida. There is a chance you get that whackadoodle judge again. Also a bit dicey with the jury pool down there. Much, much safer jury pool in DC. 95% of the vote in DC went to Biden in 2020. So maybe Trump gets one juror, maybe not. Prosecution could well be able to get rid of all Trump jurors were their preemptories.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27219
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Ok, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.
McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.
If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Why so little scrutiny (that we know of) of the "War Room"?
This chapter of the investigation has largely happened out of sight, yes?
..
This chapter of the investigation has largely happened out of sight, yes?
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
No way they are going to ignore a DoJ/Grand Jury subpoena. They might initially ask for a quash but it won't go anywhere.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 amOk, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.
McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.
If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".
After that, taking the 5th is an option or I suspect DoJ will attempt to flip some of them to get to those at the top of the alleged criminal enterprise they are investigating.
Side effect will be what they do about things when THEIR subpoenas start getting ignored in the new Congress.
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15586
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Kind of a hinky observation on your part to want to indict the man for pleading the 5th. So the implied legal right granted under the 5th to not have to incriminate yourself is justification to indict the man. I thought the suspect would/should be indicted by evidence against him/her? I guess your advocating some new interpretation of the 5th amendment I have never heard of before. I'm fairly certain your not serious about advocating such a remedy. FTR, would there not be an indictment before defense counsel would allow his client to say anything. This would have plea bargain stamped all over it if not complete immunity from any prosecution.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 amOk, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.
McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.
If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27219
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
I agree. It will prove to be impossible to ignore grand jury subpoenas.Kismet wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:25 amNo way they are going to ignore a DoJ/Grand Jury subpoena. They might initially ask for a quash but it won't go anywhere.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 amOk, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.
McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.
If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".
After that, taking the 5th is an option or I suspect DoJ will attempt to flip some of them to get to those at the top of the alleged criminal enterprise they are investigating.
Side effect will be what they do about things when THEIR subpoenas start getting ignored in the new Congress.
And their only two rational options are taking the 5th and being indicted or flipping. The most rational, but career ending is the flip at this point. McCarthy can probably testify cleanly but not gonna be Speaker if the testimony gets out. If he gets knocked out now, a lot of incentives to get payback. Undoubtedly why Trump is ‘supporting’ him.
Yes, they will be all twisted in knots trying to enforce subpoenas in revenge hearings.
But do Dems honor them and create contrast?
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27219
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27219
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
You have not correctly understood what I meant, as I didn't explain adequately.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:48 amKind of a hinky observation on your part to want to indict the man for pleading the 5th. So the implied legal right granted under the 5th to not have to incriminate yourself is justification to indict the man. I thought the suspect would/should be indicted by evidence against him/her? I guess your advocating some new interpretation of the 5th amendment I have never heard of before. I'm fairly certain your not serious about advocating such a remedy. FTR, would there not be an indictment before defense counsel would allow his client to say anything. This would have plea bargain stamped all over it if not complete immunity from any prosecution.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 amOk, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.
McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.
If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".
They have evidence of these guys being involved in the conspiracy. Texts, phone logs, others' testimony. My starting point is that they have plenty to indict and convict, assuming they indict the conspiracy overall.
But they'd like to have their testimony as well.
IF they take the 5th, indict...if want to testify and make an attractive proffer to do so, make a deal...or not and indict.
Only way out of indictment is to make a deal.
Yes, a good lawyer would want to make a deal prior to the testimony.
I suspect that McCarthy doesn't need to make a deal, but he'd know if he knew more about the conspiracy and had greenlit it...I'm thinking probably, 'no', but if he did know, then he better make a deal before someone else does...
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27219
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
I don't think such a petition would be successful, but I agree they'll try.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:31 amSo job #1 for the dumpsters legal team will be to petition for a change of venue. They have to believe he is screwed if the trial takes place in DC.njbill wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 11:02 pm I think it would be malpractice to bring the case in Florida. There is a chance you get that whackadoodle judge again. Also a bit dicey with the jury pool down there. Much, much safer jury pool in DC. 95% of the vote in DC went to Biden in 2020. So maybe Trump gets one juror, maybe not. Prosecution could well be able to get rid of all Trump jurors were their preemptories.
-
- Posts: 5369
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
First cooperator gets the prize.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:19 amYou have not correctly understood what I meant, as I didn't explain adequately.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:48 amKind of a hinky observation on your part to want to indict the man for pleading the 5th. So the implied legal right granted under the 5th to not have to incriminate yourself is justification to indict the man. I thought the suspect would/should be indicted by evidence against him/her? I guess your advocating some new interpretation of the 5th amendment I have never heard of before. I'm fairly certain your not serious about advocating such a remedy. FTR, would there not be an indictment before defense counsel would allow his client to say anything. This would have plea bargain stamped all over it if not complete immunity from any prosecution.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 amOk, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.
McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.
If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".
They have evidence of these guys being involved in the conspiracy. Texts, phone logs, others' testimony. My starting point is that they have plenty to indict and convict, assuming they indict the conspiracy overall.
But they'd like to have their testimony as well.
IF they take the 5th, indict...if want to testify and make an attractive proffer to do so, make a deal...or not and indict.
Only way out of indictment is to make a deal.
Yes, a good lawyer would want to make a deal prior to the testimony.
I suspect that McCarthy doesn't need to make a deal, but he'd know if he knew more about the conspiracy and had greenlit it...I'm thinking probably, 'no', but if he did know, then he better make a deal before someone else does...
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27219
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Yup, but I think I'd accept a plea from all the Congress folks if it came with a resignation and a guilty plea to the insurrection charge, with community service and/or a short stay in a country club penitentiary. No future office.PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:25 amFirst cooperator gets the prize.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:19 amYou have not correctly understood what I meant, as I didn't explain adequately.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:48 amKind of a hinky observation on your part to want to indict the man for pleading the 5th. So the implied legal right granted under the 5th to not have to incriminate yourself is justification to indict the man. I thought the suspect would/should be indicted by evidence against him/her? I guess your advocating some new interpretation of the 5th amendment I have never heard of before. I'm fairly certain your not serious about advocating such a remedy. FTR, would there not be an indictment before defense counsel would allow his client to say anything. This would have plea bargain stamped all over it if not complete immunity from any prosecution.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:38 amOk, so does the Special Prosecutor subpoena these guys?CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:00 am The others involved will get a pass by the new Congress, but this sure makes it hard for Congress to now ever apply a subpeona on one of their own.
The committee also referred four members of the House to the House Ethics Committee for ignoring the committee’s subpoenas: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Scott Perry (R-PA), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
What a motley bunch of DEPLORABLES.
I sure as heck would, regardless of "politics", as the theory of the case is that there was a conspiracy, with Trump at the head, between various Trump lawyers and supporters, both in DC and in the states, to submit fraudulent slates of electors and to pressure Pence to illegally throw the election to Trump, with these Congressmen involved in presenting the phony slates, and in the pressure campaign on Pence. They knew and were involved in the conspiracy to defraud the United States and in the obstruction case.
McCarthy is likely more of a material witness to Trump's state of mind during the insurrection when they were speaking...could be more, but at a minimum, a material witness.
If they refuse a DOJ subpoena, indict.
If they plead the 5th, indict.
But they can do a deal and tell the "whole truth".
They have evidence of these guys being involved in the conspiracy. Texts, phone logs, others' testimony. My starting point is that they have plenty to indict and convict, assuming they indict the conspiracy overall.
But they'd like to have their testimony as well.
IF they take the 5th, indict...if want to testify and make an attractive proffer to do so, make a deal...or not and indict.
Only way out of indictment is to make a deal.
Yes, a good lawyer would want to make a deal prior to the testimony.
I suspect that McCarthy doesn't need to make a deal, but he'd know if he knew more about the conspiracy and had greenlit it...I'm thinking probably, 'no', but if he did know, then he better make a deal before someone else does...
That is, unless they were actively asking for the violence, too and the prosecutors can prove it. Throw the book at them, no plea.
But the fake slate of electors BS, the attempts at legal whitewashing of a coup, huge deal, but their testimony and admission would have a heck of a lot of value to the aftermath.